I do send packet IDs simplex when operating a tac call. I definitely do not
consider it snubbing tradition or anything of the sort. I do it to make better
use of available bandwidth... consider me a good neighbor. My equipment IDs
using the on-air characteristics (power, deviation, etc), but my tac call ID's
do not waste bandwidth beyond simplex range. Yes, one could argue that one
packet out three hops every 10 minutes is not a heavy bandwidth user, but I
tend to believe that every little bit helps. On the other hand, CWID, although
legal has two problems... first true DCD machines can't "see" it, second it is
not an "in mode" ID. and well, third, it takes a LLLLOOOOONNNNGGGG time to
send.
Just to side track here... has anyone thought about how much bandwidth we'd have
if every digi owner would minimize their TXdelay? I say digiowners because
although a home stations's tx-delay may be longer than needed, it only
transmits every 10 minutes (or 1 to 3 minutes for your mobile). Compare this
with the sheer number of packets your local digipeater sends every minute. If
the TXdelay on a digipeater is 200ms too long (most radios today will work with
100ms txd, and the kpc3 defaults to 300ms), and a digi can transmit 1200 packets
an hour (assuming 33% saturation), it would save 240 seconds per hour of on air
time. In a saturated network, this would permit 4 more mobile users with a one
minute beacon rate, or 40 more home users with a 10 minute beacon rate.
Wes
Quoting Tate KC7ZRU <kc7zru at arrl.net>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>>scott at opentrac.org wrote:
> |
> | I've got nothing against callsigns in the comment field. It's when you've
> | got dumb trackers with tactical calls that are only transmitting a CW
> ID or
> | other non-digipeated ID that I get annoyed.
>> Aye, annoying it may well be (and is in my book too!) - it's still
> legal, IMHO. Part 97 simply says that each transmitter must ID and even
> CW on a voice channel, though impolite, is allowed.
>> I often have to wonder if it's more of taking advantage of a loophole to
> fly in the face of tradition/protocol. A self centered ego maneuver.
> More of an 'individualists' nose snubbing to the traditions of amateur
> radio. Rather than evolving traditions within the rules to meet a need.
> Even if that need is rather frivolous from my perspective.
>> But, no matter my annoyance or disdain - it's still following the letter
> of Part 97.
>> 73
>> - --
> Tate KC7ZRU
>http://kc7zru.net>> GPG Public key available at http://kc7zru.net/kc7zru-pub.key>> .
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org>> iD4DBQFBhx3aBWMVStWtSY4RAo0TAJYwp1copNsIOjKISR703329ztusAJ9yz8a5
> SD4QGWt5WrjMS2qyp4klTw==
> =Wrxg
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
>aprssig at lists.tapr.org>https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig>